Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post

Poster: 79magnum Date: Aug 23, 2011 2:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Long John Silver Removed due to Claim


While you wish to go on about what you believe, here is the fact:

Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)

Search Request: Left Anchored Title = Long John Silver
Search Results: Displaying 1 of 8 entries



Long John Silver.
Type of Work:
Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date:
PA0001292202 / 2004-07-15
Title:
Long John Silver.
Description:
Videocassette ; 1/2 in.
Copyright Claimant:
Kim Newton
Date of Publication:
1954
Authorship on Application:
motion picture: Robert Newton, -1956.
Copyright Note:
C.O. correspondence.

Reg. under GATT/URAA restoration.

Cataloged from appl. only.


Names:
Newton, Kim

Newton, Robert, -1956

As to the credibility of the agent who we negotiated the rights to this film with, I offer you this link:

http://www.cmgworldwide.com/corporate/clients.html




Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Aug 23, 2011 11:50pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Long John Silver Removed due to Claim

While I have no doubt of the credibility of the agent, the existence of a GATT/URAA restoration registration has no bearing of the film's ineligibility for such copyright restoration. The facts I presented (not beliefs, FACTS) mean that the film remains, unquestionably in the public domain. As representitive of Robert Newton's publicity rights, CMG has every right to license his likeness and image for the next 15 years, however, it should always be remebered that such publicity and trade mark rights never apply to public domain works, under federal law.

The restoration registration you have supplied is marked C.O Correspondence. This usually means that there is some doubt as to the validity of the claim and the Copyright Office has written to the claimant seeking clarification. The copyright office still files the registration but may not stand by it if the matter came to court and they were presented with the true facts about the films status.

You may have an agreement with the authorised representitive of the star of the film's estate, however, your claim to copyright on the film would most probably fail if it were to be tested in court.

The qualifications for GATT/URAA restorations are intended to stop organisations using the legisilation as a work-around to re-copyrighting expired US works that were simply made in a foreign country and were not genuine foreign works. The exclusion of a film like "Long John Silver" from copyright restoration would be right and proper and within the spirit of the legislation.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-08-24 06:50:30

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 79magnum Date: Aug 24, 2011 10:25am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Long John Silver Removed due to Claim

The C.O Correspondence had nothing to do with the copyright claim. It was in regards to the original film footage on file.

We do not claim to own the copyright. That is owned by Kim Newton. We have the distribution rights to this film. Any questions you have regarding the validity of this copyright claim should be addressed to Mr. Newton or the Library of Congress. Attacking us for requesting our rights to be honored as the copyright currently stands, is confusing to us at best.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Aug 24, 2011 2:11pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Long John Silver Removed due to Claim

Firstly, as the copyright currently stands this film is public domain, and has remained so for nearly 30 years, because it clearly does not qualify for GATT/URAA restoration. The onus is always of the copyright claimant to prove their claim when it comes to restoration.

Secondly, if you have simply only liceneced the distribution and do not actaully have license of the so called "copyright" you have very limited access to DMCA, firstly because you are not the copyright owner and secondly becuse the film is, in reality, not protected by copyright.

I would suggest you should get legal advice based on the facts about this film. If you are going to lodge numerous DMCAs on this public domain film you may eventually end up in a court action (there are provisions in the DMCA to protect "content users" from such action by "rights holders".) In that case, YOU will have to prove YOUR claim. YOU are making the DMCA claim not Kim Newton or CMG.

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 79magnum Date: Aug 24, 2011 2:45pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Long John Silver Removed due to Claim

Your continued denial of something we have shown you to be correct, is something we will not continue to debate.

Any concerns or questions you may have should be directed to the Library of Congress or you may feel free to contact the legal staff at CMG.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Aug 24, 2011 3:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Long John Silver Removed due to Claim

It is not denial. The facts on this film mean that that registration, while dutily filed by the USCO, is invalid and holds no legal weight. As claimant it is your responsibility to prove your rights. You have not done so. I would urge the uploader to lodge a counter notice and to contact the usual channels, the EFF, etc about possible challenges to the restoration registration.